|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 26, 2014 0:20:25 GMT -5
I believe AudioHTIT is correct. The standard balanced terminology that most people identify with requires two inverted signals and thus double of certain circuitry is only present in the XPA-1 L, XPA-1, XPR-1. The benefit of this is that certain distortions picked up within the circuit as the signal travels through it are cancelled out due to the inverted signals cancelling each other out.
A fully balanced design from end to end will have this cancellation throughout the audio chain. Since it requires doubling of certain circuitry, it is pretty expensive to do.
Keith did do a pretty thorough explanation of it in one of those threads if I recall.
Where Emotiva comes in with their dual differential appears to relate mainly to the input being differential rather than the output (?) I may be mistaken as to the last one.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfeust on Jun 26, 2014 13:38:52 GMT -5
I've said this before. If Emotiva put XSP-1,DC-1 and 2 x XPA-1L into one chassis @ between $1500 and $1999 they would sella ton of them.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Jun 26, 2014 13:59:51 GMT -5
I've said this before. If Emotiva put XSP-1,DC-1 and 2 x XPA-1L into one chassis @ between $1500 and $1999 they would sella ton of them. Mark Perhaps. But the name would be stupidly long. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 26, 2014 14:55:05 GMT -5
They could call it the Emotiva "Now you're done!" Or the NYD-!
It would be under the Series name: "We just put everybody out of business" line.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparky14 on Jun 26, 2014 15:06:49 GMT -5
+1 on the integrated. I'd love to see something to compete with Peachtree for an all-in-one unit. Add in a 80Hz cutoff / sub out for 2.1 systems, and you'll have what Peachtree doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpine on Jun 26, 2014 15:16:02 GMT -5
I'd like to see an integrated maybe even two. Not a big deal to me if includes a dac but it is something that seems to gaining popularity. I voted no on more lines, it could get confusing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyb on Jun 26, 2014 16:51:01 GMT -5
My vote is for YES, in that an integrated would be a hot ticket I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfeust on Jun 26, 2014 18:46:43 GMT -5
I've said this before. If Emotiva put XSP-1,DC-1 and 2 x XPA-1L into one chassis @ between $1500 and $1999 they would sella ton of them. Mark Perhaps. But the name would be stupidly long. How about a simple and short XIA-1L Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Nodscene on Jun 26, 2014 20:59:23 GMT -5
Wouldn't it make sense to call it an XDX-1L²  |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jun 26, 2014 21:09:50 GMT -5
I've said this before. If Emotiva put XSP-1,DC-1 and 2 x XPA-1L into one chassis @ between $1500 and $1999 they would sella ton of them. Mark Hi Mark, I'm not so sure, since the major appeal of the XPA-1L is its Class A ability. The type of person most likely to want a Class A monoblock amp isn't going to look at an integration solution, it wouldn't even appear on their radar. However I could understand that an XDA-2, USP-1 and XPA-200 together in one box might have some attraction. But the next step up in all 3 I think puts it outside its target audience. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Feel Good on Jun 26, 2014 23:17:46 GMT -5
*** MAYBE *** Let me explain why,
It would be pointless to stick a line up between the X and The Reference Series, just a total waste of new product budget. If you "NEED" the juice get the Reference series, otherwise the X will power up anything anyways. So that is just consumers "Wanting" stuff, business wise makes zero sense to me. However, lets take the developmental budget and put it towards something that we don't have and everyone agrees we need, Integrated Amp. 3 products.
- Ultra Series: The love child of the UPA 200 and USP1 .
- X Series: The love child of the XSP and XPA2 or the XPA 1L.
- Reference Series: The love child of the XSP and XPR2
I think these 3 products would cover the majority of the Market especially now with the Fusion series already in place and doing well. Throw in a X and Reference Series Music server and the Audiophile system is complete. Very clean, minimalist and Audiophile!
Doc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jun 27, 2014 0:09:51 GMT -5
*** MAYBE *** Let me explain why, It would be pointless to stick a line up between the X and The Reference Series, just a total waste of new product budget. If you "NEED" the juice get the Reference series, otherwise the X will power up anything anyways. So that is just consumers "Wanting" stuff, business wise makes zero sense to me. However, lets take the developmental budget and put it towards something that we don't have and everyone agrees we need, Integrated Amp. 3 products. - Ultra Series: The love child of the UPA 200 and USP1 . - X Series: The love child of the XSP and XPA2 or the XPA 1L. - Reference Series: The love child of the XSP and XPR2 I think these 3 products would cover the majority of the Market especially now with the Fusion series already in place and doing well. Throw in a X and Reference Series Music server and the Audiophile system is complete. Very clean, minimalist and Audiophile! Doc. No DAC Doc? I would think that these days leaving a DAC out of a state of the art integrated would not be received favourably. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Jun 27, 2014 0:13:41 GMT -5
A USP-1/XDA-2/XPA-200 all rolled into one chassis would make for a very nice integrated amp. And I'd like to see room correction built in - at least for the bass management. The HK990 has done wonders for my 2 channel listening pleasure. The HK990 has managed to 'marry' the ERT's with my two very good 12" sealed DIY subwoofers. Yeah - I've had processors with room correction and all that but it isn't 2 channel - and separate amps take up too damned much room. And do you know how many cables you can eliminate with something like the HK990? LOTS! And I have everything IN the audio rack. There is only so much room in it and I'm not ready to go out and buy a new one. I'm cheap!
|
|
|
|
Post by Axis on Jun 27, 2014 0:41:28 GMT -5
There is a reason why Emotiva makes the separates they do. It makes a difference or I would not have the three components I have now. I have no problems with arguments to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jun 27, 2014 1:06:39 GMT -5
There is a reason why Emotiva makes the separates they do. It makes a difference or I would not have the three components I have now. I have no problems with arguments to that. I don't think you'll get a lot of arguments here, most agree separates are better. But ... this thread asks the question is the room for more? A full function integrated amp might work for those: short on space for separates, without the budget for separates, looking for a high quality but 'simple' component for a second system (bedroom, garage, computer, etc.), other uses I'm sure. I'm warming to the idea (but probably not Class A warm). |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jun 27, 2014 8:49:01 GMT -5
Take the volume control off the mini-X A-100, beef up the power just a bit, make it one channel, and sell them as mini-monoblocks.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jun 27, 2014 11:10:02 GMT -5
The old UPA-2 also had a potentiometer volume control. Also interestingly it had a daisy chain RCA circuit which allowed you to passthrough the pre-amp signal to another amp. It was on the back for level matching but could be used as a volume control if you didn't mind bending over everytime.
|
|
|
|
Post by eirik84 on Oct 10, 2014 0:53:48 GMT -5
I would really like some smaller sized monos like drtrey3 said! A lot of "tv-benchs" are like this (smaller sidecabinets), so it would be great to have monoblocks to fit in the sidecabinets! Make it 100/120 watts in 8 ohm and 200 watts in 4 ohm   |
|
